If you can use it to describe both men and women, then it's not sexist. (I didn't really know you could call a guy "babe" before. But I'm Russian.)

However, I still think it's inappropriate.
Because
1. It's slang.
2. Many women find it insulting.
3. This tag was used for adult content too often. And now it's a G-rated category. So who is going to recat all the porn there?

The way I look at this is much the way I look at, or don't look at x-rated stumblers, if you find babes offensive don't subscribe to Stumblers who use this tag / category.

It could actually be more useful than not, a red-flag if you wish it to be.

I don't buy 'lad's mag's' which are mainly 'tit's and ass' which Rupert Murdoch famously promised to give his UK readers when he purchased the Sun newspaper, before turning it into the nations best selling tabloid.
It's signature feature has been since that time page 3, which almost always displays a full page shot of what - at least in the UK is termed a glamour model, consequently in the UK glamour modelling means topless shots.
I'm not sure that is what SU is aiming for with 'babes' as this isn't a R cat - right?

The other way to look at this is if the Stumblers who are currently thumbing up 'generic half naked 'babe' eg Megan Fox' as Photography - start using the babe cat. It might make Photography category more about the art - the outstanding and interesting, rather than just another swimsuit model.

It maybe if you were called a babe in real life you would take offense, many other people would however consider this complementary.
However perhaps the longer tag attractive-women / attractive-men, would better serve.

Would you consider this complimentary, if a stranger called your wife, girlfriend or your sister "babe"?
OK... Probably, it's just me, who finds this familiarity offensive.
I don't mind about this category, I just don't like how it's called. That's all.

Honestly I could imagine a set of circumstances where I would take offense - because I do understand your POV, but generally I wouldn't, lots of people girls and guys, have told me my sister is a babe, and she is an attractive woman.
If SU had at the same time created the Hunk cat. I wouldn't have found that offensive, but I appreciate some words are offensive to other people. A lot of Stumblers use the F*ck a lot, I don't use it in my blog, and I would probably not use the babe tag in my blog for the same reason.
I just chirped up because I reasoned glamour ( modelling ) must mean something different in the UK - ie topless shots, and I was just guessing that a glamour tag would lead to that kind of pic being tagged.

@Etcetera, calling a guy a "babe" could still be considered sexist by the guy, some men don't like being objectified either. Just cuz it can be used on both sexes doesn't make it not sexist, insert the word "slut" in its place, its can be equally offensive to both sexes :)

Either way, while *I* don't find the word "babe" offensive personally I can *totally* understand how others do and I think I do agree a change would be best.

from a tagging POV babes is quick to type, but Etcetera is right it's slang and offensive to some.
As I said Glamour means in the UK is used interchangeably with Topless pics, however it maybe the best world-English compromise ( however don't be surprised if UK Stumblers get confused )
This is why I suggested the longer to type, but more neutral Attractive-Woman - even Beautiful-Woman
and Attractive-Man even Handsome-man.

Beautiful-people is another alternative to cover both sexes, but this doesn't fit the 'lad's mag' category that I imagined ( rightly or wrongly) that SU was trying to cater for.

I just added the topic "Babes" and stumbled it to see what was returned. There were TWO whole stumbles tagged with it before I received the message "You have seen all Babes pages. Explore others..." The two sites showed photos of model shoots. One had leggy Asian women in thigh high boots, the other had a woman in an dressy dress showing off a little cleavage and a lot of her legs.

If that's the type of photos that will be in that category, "Models" would fit. Pictures of men showing off their (clothed) physique would fit under the topic, too.

Or what about "Hot Photos"? It still sounds cheesy, but I think the term gets the idea across of the photos being sexually attractive (without being explicit) without being sexist. (I think?)

(Sorry to keep editing this, but I keep thinking of something else after I update.)
Why were these put under the topic "Society" anyway? Seems like this would be a subgroup of photography or something...

I also like Glamor. But the reality is, when people tag, they use the Babes tag more frequently than Glamor. Can you force them to use Glamor instead? Can you tell them: Do not discover this site under Photography and tag it as "Babes" but discover it under Glamor or Models.

A lot of users who stumble in Photography are extremely upset to run into such sites. The goal is to provide an alternative to Photography. But what is the right term to use, that our users (consumers of that topic) understand and can relate to?

When I think glamour/glamor, I think of models or fashion or make-up or hairstyles. From what Charles says above, it sounds like a UK interpretation of glamour shots means topless photography. Neither terms fit these photos.

I don't think anyone would tag these photos as glamor since that word doesn't conjure cheesecake shots (or beefcake as the case may be).

...as long as vintage pin-ups aren't dumped out with the bathwater. I'd hate to have Bettie Page and WWII pin-ups not show up anymore. (But, you know, if that's the price I'd have to pay not to have the clothed porn show up, I'd go with it.)

I guess Bette, and Varga Girls could still legitimately reside in art and photography.
My main concern with my own suggestion is will this work?
Like you said you've already tagged beauty, and others have tagged sensual, I bet there is a WWII bomber nose tagged pin-up. what we haven't I dare say used is babes.
Straight away it's not a term I'd use, but it is a term that SU tells us is being used - it maybe the best way to strip out ( excuse the pun ) the half naked Megan Fox et al - the greater evil, by putting up with the lesser one.
That said I'm not offended by the term.
I guess what I am getting at is we need a term adolescent boys are going to recognise and use - which isn't offensive? ok maybe I'm asking too much :P

Some people look at those choices and think since there is no nudity, it's safe for work. Could the description for "No" add something about suggestive or sexy content?

When someone chooses the topic photography, can an additional question come up asking if it is this kind of photography? It would be good to have the topic corrected to "[Whatever replaces "babes"]" right at the discovery page instead of being stumbled and corrected by someone who never wanted to see that content in the first place.

And people who want these photos aren't going to find it if it's mixed in with Photography (landscape and flower shots)...

What about peeking the "babe" instead - so much nude and xxx content!
Anita(B) - lol. You seem to like babe much more i see in there :)
So i'm all for the Glamor also - there's not (yet) much nudity / pr0n!
Sexy is also OK, but sexy photos would narrow the category too much!?

FYI - This is a thread from our previous GetSatisfaction community that we moved here to track still-standing issues and feature requests. Feel free to comment and participate in these discussions if they are still relevant to your experience on StumbleUpon today. Thanks!